I
Pre-RD Group's Proposal for Pre-RD Investigation and Baseline Sampling
Meeting with ERA Region 10, Seattle August 28, 2017
For Settlement Purposes Only
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00115593-00001
Agenda for August 28 meeting
Roll call and introductions Pre-RD Group offer is voluntary Areas of agreement/scorecard Areas of remaining disagreement
- AOC s SOW and Work Plan Limitations of the Pre-RD Group
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00115593-00002
Pre-RD Group Vision
Our proposal is a robust plan, estimated cost exceeds $15 million
Group ready to implement Need to complete in two years - a shared goal
Will require expedited ERA reviews and approvals Meets R O D 'S stated need for more information
Will provide updated data to refine the remedy and establish baseline
Provides information needed to progress allocation among PRPs Pre-RD Group's plan written independently of EPA's June plan
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00115593-00003
Pre-RD Group's Vision (cont'd)
* Key issue: Rl data 10-15 years old - decision documents do not represent current conditions - Makes allocation among PRPs difficult - Interim PRP studies show changes in site conditions Support PRPs' understanding that site is cleaner now than ERA'S ROD reflects Data collected in past 5 years show improvements, hut were not considered in ROD decision New information may support iess active remediation than shown in ROD ROD did not establish accurate urhan/downtown/up-river background loading Site risks may be over-stated based on current conditions, lack of site-specific fish consumption info
* A pre-RD scope of work is needed to establish current conditions " Fish tissue levels, sediments, etc. to create confidence by PRPs
* Work is aligned with EPA Superfund reform goals - Move sites along Follow the data, use focused scoping to target key remedy areas
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00115593-00004
Overview of negotiations on scope
1 Scope element
Pre-RD G roup offer
EPA Current Position
1- B a th y m e tric s u rv e y
2. S u rfa c e s e d im e n t s a m p lin g : e s ta b lis h c u rre n t co n d itio n s , re fin in g S M A b o u n d a rie s, d e te rm in in g b a s e lin e fo r th e site
B a n k -to -b a n k s ite -w id e s u rv e y to
a s s e s s c h a n g e s in s e d im e n t
s e d im e n ta tio n and riv e r bottom
e le v a tio n
In itia l p lan o f 2 0 0 u n b ia s e d
s a m p le s (p lu s S M A s a m p le s )
in c re a s e d to 3 4 5 u n b ia se d
s a m p le s (5 8 0 to ta l)
R e vise s ta tis tic a l s tra te g y A d d e d 145 u n b ia s e d s a m p le s
fo r ERA
S ite = 9 s e g m e n ts R e o c c u p y in g 87 s ta tio n s A d d e d 3 -p t co m p o s ite s S u ffic ie n t s ta tis tic a l p o w e r
(b a se d on P C B a n a lysis)
A n a ly z e fo r fo c u s e d C O C 's
OK
N o m o v e m e n tto d ate N e ed 4 2 0 + u n b ia se d
s a m p le s
N eed to m o n ito r a t RM
s c a le (21 s e g m e n ts )
S ta tis tic a l c o n s u lta n t to
p ro v id e b a c k u p a n a ly s is n o n e p ro vid e d
M u s t a n a ly z e a ll C O C s
Aieas o f Disagreem ent
1
liiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
N u m b e r o f u n b ia s e d s a m p le s (3 4 5 vs. 420+)
C O C s fo r a n a ly s is
3. S M B fish tis s u e s a m p lin g 4. S u rfa c e w a te r s a m p lin g
S M B fis h tis s u e s a m p le s a t 95
s t a t io n s In S ite
A n a lyze fo r fo c u s e d C O C s (m in u s
PAH)
8 transects, 3 se aso na l events, 3
su b s ta tio n s p e r tra n se ct
A d d e d X A D s a m p le r A n a ly z e fo r fo c u s e d C O C s
(to ta l
a n d d is s o lv e d )
9 5 s a m p le s in s ite o k * O n ly w h o le bod y s a m p lin g o k) M u s t a n a ly z e a ll C O C s
U se X A D s a m p le rs to m e e t lo w
d e te c tio n le ve ls
M u s t a n a ly z e a ll C O C s
C O C 's fo r a n a ly s is - c o u ld d riv e v o lu m e to im p ra c tic a l lim its
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00115593-00005
Overview of scope negotiations (cont'd)
Scope elem ent
5. S u b s u rfa c e s e d im e n t co rin g
6. F is h a c o u s tic tra c k in g s tu d y 7 C a m e ra s u rv e y o f a n g ie rs
8. D o w n to w n R e a c h /U p s tre a m R e a c h s a m p lin g
Pte-RDGtoup offei
E P AC uuent Position
9 0 s e d im e n t c o re s ty p ic a lly 1 0 -1 5 fe e t d e e p a n d 6 fe e t in near-shore areas
2 -fo o t s a m p ie in c re m e n ts A n a ly z e fo r fo c u s e d C O C s
P ilo t a n d y e a r-lo n g fu ll s tu d y
12 s ta tio n a ry c a m e ra s at s e le c t lo c a tio n s fo r + 1 yr D a t3 on lo c a tio n a n d fre q u e n c y o f fis h in g a lo n g riv e r
4 0 s e d im e n t s a m p le s (2 0 in D o w n to w n , 2 0 in U p s tre a m ) to a s s e s s in c o m in g b a d to S ite
10 S M B s a m p le s in c re a s e d to 25 s a m p le s
A d d e d 3 -p o in t s e d im e n t c o m p o s ite s
A n a ly z e fo r fo c u s e d C O C 's
* O rig in a lly re q u e s te d + 1 0 00 c o re s (10Q% d e s ig n le v e l)
M oved to agree to 90 cores * 1 -foo t s a m p le in c re m e n ts F o c u s e d G O C s p lus
g e o te ch n ica l param e ters. N A P L ID T O C . g ra m size d
O K . in te rp re tin g fis h tis s u e d a ta a n d th e s u ita b ility o f S M B as an in d ic a to r o f re m e d y e ffe c tiv e n e s s
O K . C o u ld be u sefu l fo r in fo rm in g fis h c o n s u m p tio n a d v is o rle s n C 's
R e q u ire 6 0 s e d im e n t s a m p le s - s p ilt D o w n to w n / U p stre a m
40 SMB - s p lit D o w n to w n / U p stre a m
A n a ly z e a il C O C s
Areas of disagreem ent
P re -R D G ro u p o ffe r * Focused COCs P lu s T O C a n d g ra in s iz e
None
None
N u m b e r o f s e d im e n t s a m p le s Num ber of SMB C O C 's f o r a n a ly s is
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00115593-00006
Overview of scope negotiations (cont'd)
Scape element
P ie-R D G ioup offei
EPA position
Areas of disagreem ent
9. S e d irn e n ttra p s
i R e v is e d offs;rin g 2 tra n s e c ts
b e tw e e n R M 1 1 .8 a n d 16.2. - d ata o f c o n ta m in a n t lo a d in g in to th e S ite e 2 s a m p le s p e r tra n s e c t 3 s a m p lin g e v e n ts F ocused C O C s o n iy
O K w ith 2 tra n s e c ts v s 5
C u C s fo r a n a lysis
j A ll G O C s m u s t be a n a lyze d
; * W o u ld fo re g o th e s e if P re -R D i
G ro u p a n a ly z e s th ro u g h o u t
j
fo ra iiC O C s
j
i
10. U p stre a m /B a c k g ro u n d pore w a te r s a m p le s fo r m e ta ls
8 u p s tre a m lo c a tio n s co lo c a te d w ith s e d im e n t s a m p le s
S a m p lin g n a tu ra lly o c c u rrin g m e ta ls o n ly (A s a n d M n)
O K , lo c a tio n s s h o u ld be ta rg e te d to a p p ro p ria te s ite c o n d itio n s
None
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00115593-00007
Key areas of disagreement on work
scope
* Number of COCs to be analyzed * Substantial cost impacts * Schedule impacts on project, including QA/QC reporting, threatens 2-year goal * General practice post-ROD is to narrow COC list to a subset of COCs based on co-location, toxicity, & significance in the risk assessments, as is done in the PH ROD * Remedial footprint of Focused COCs encompasses the majority of the COCs at the Site
* Number of unbiased samples in surface sediments * Additional analyses delay project * Sample increment (1-foot vs. 2-foot) * We have increased sample count by 200 to meet EPA concerns (new total 580) * Currently will achieve sufficient statistical (0.8) power needed by EPA and the Pre-RD Group
* Sediment and SMB fish samples for upstream areas (40 vs. 60 that EPA wants) * Our DQO is not focused on difference between downtown and upstream
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00115593-00008
AOC status-- issues not yet resolved
* rDeaptoartuss:e - will be evaluated by Pre-RD Group per AOC Section 3.1 in two
= SMAfootprint report, Pre-design investigation (PDI) Evaluation Report
* Costs charged to project
- Agreed no NRD trustee oversight costs or role in this project Need clarity that trustee costs through grants from ERA will not be billed to this project
= ERA'S cost of developing its own sampling plan not charged to this AOC * Will pay oversight costs from date negotiations with ERA began In June
= Cap on ERA and ODEQ oversight costs
* Dispute resolution provision involving expert panel / HQ EPA staff
= Toll penalties on disputed items - Need external panel to quickly receive technical disputes
* EPA work "takeover" not consistent with limited, short term project * No scope increase unless mutually agreed by EPA and Group
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00115593-00009
SOW status-- issues not yet resolved
* Work Plan must be approved at time of signature of AO C or 2-year schedule will not be achievable
* PDI Evaluation Report includes analysis of data collected and its implications = Refine SMAs ^ Generate new SWACs = Collect data from downtown/upstream areas and consider impact on achieving cleanup standards = Review implications of new data on food web model
* EPA review time periods must be achieved to deliver this work in a meaningful time frame - June 2019 report
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00115593-00010
Conclusions
Pre-RD group companies are willing to fund and execute the work
- Each has committed substantial resources to bring forth cor prcposa to this point
Our coalition is fragile; we have lost several members
Seek better working relationship with EPA
- Improve pace of remedy implementation - Support allocation process = Promote and support EPA Suparfund reform initiatives
Thank you for this opportunity.
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00115593-00011